Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  Next

Comments 101351 to 101400:

  1. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @402 actually thoughtfull Nonsense of the first order. Climate is not going to be saved by the well heeled indulging in micro generation. Not now, not in ten years, not in 20 years, not in 50 years and not in 100 years. Never ever. Period. The climate problem is an industrial problem and requires solutions on an industrial scale - and quickly. Individuals do not build GW scale power stations - but that is what is needed. The US deployed 140 MW of PV in the first 11 months of 2010 and over 6000 MW of new coal. Assuming a generous 20% capacity factor for PV and 80% for coal, it would take 28 years of PV deployment at this rate to equal the output of just one 1GW coal fired power station. This is the harsh reality that the purveyors of the micro generation nonsense would rather hide. You cannot solve the climate problem without getting rid of coal. Micro generation will NEVER get rid of coal. Maintaining otherwise is sheer fantasy - backed by no evidence whatsoever. You either want to tackle the climate problem or you don't ......
  2. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Checking the bible to see what's the right and wrong thing to say isn't to everybodies taste. I'm much happier to jump in and be shown to be wrong. " I think John would be first to tell you, this site ain't the bible. It's a resource. A damn good one. You should try it some time.
  3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    #170, damorbel, now you're getting sloppy. You actually you can't find whatever you want in a textbook. I challenge you to find one that explicitly states or implies that the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the second law. The equations will always say the same thing (pretty much along the lines of Tom's post above). It's not even that complex...just an energy budget. People do the same calculations when they balance their checkbook. Freedom of opinion is good, and you're welcome to it. But in science talk is cheap. If you are going to dismiss centuries of painful experiment, careful theory and thorough debate out of hand, then I am afraid the onus is on you to actually redo the experimental and theoretical work yourself. Only then will you be have something to contribute. Good luck with that.
  4. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Re my comment at 228 It has just occurred to me that of course work is done when a parcel of air is lifted to a higher altitude which must be equal to MGH. That is Mass X Gravity X Height so that means the temperature drop per KM will work out as the same number as G provide of course the air is not saturated. This must be true for any planet.
  5. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #165 Riccardo you wrote:- "As I alread said, check any textbook. Or you think you know better than textbooks?" I'm quite sure you can find whatever you want in a textbook, lots of 'scientific' theories are published in text books, there many many books published with wonky ideas, a sure sign is when there is no evidence presented, typically 'heat is energy in transit' which by any standards is a meaningless, self-defining statement. One of the benefits of my education was the poor view taken by my teachers of the availble textbooks; we were encouraged to question all matters and our teachers responded (sometimes!) to challenges. scaddenp, this response should cover your #164 also ("This discussion would manage a great deal less misinterpretation if using an agreed text book").
  6. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @ archiesteel: you can disagree with me on this subject but I refuse to turn the talk into a row.
  7. Ice data made cooler
    @RSVP: I accept your admission that you have indeed no credibility on the matter, and have lost the argument. The question is, after being shown wrong so many times, why are you still here re-hashing the same old debunked arguments? Unlike wine, bad science does not get better with age...
  8. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    52 archiesteel *sigh* I don't worry about the caliber of what I say, it's surprising how quickly somebody here will jump all over you correct you when they think you're wrong.
  9. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "There exists the search function in the upper left of each page as well as the Arguments page. I used both myself for more than a year before commenting here for the first time." Checking the bible to see what's the right and wrong thing to say isn't to everybodies taste. I'm much happier to jump in and be shown to be wrong.
  10. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    addition to #176 The same pressure difference = same number of molecules 200 mbar - about 11 km altitude Pressure difference across the height of an air layer with CO2 in which the initial intensity of a vertical infrared beam to 1 / e is dropped (Lambert.Beer) The Comparing the two charts above give the narrow spike at 15μm (= 666cm-1). There, is much absorbed, emits a lot, but according to the temperature. Therefore, the bright peak due to the narrow tip of the ozone area.
  11. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @HR: "The first thing I ever posted on RC was deleted. Same was true at Rohm's website." If it was of the same caliber as the stuff you post here, I can't say I'm surprised, or even disapprove. As the moderator indicated, there's plenty of ways for newcomers to learn the science - not that you are a newcomer by any stretch of the imagination...
  12. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR #49 - again, the article doesn't say Lindzen fiddled or cherrypicked. It says the way he analyzed the data left it open to fiddling or cherrypicking. He could have just chosen a random start and end point, but 'fiddling' with the data to choose a different start and/or end point would give a different result. The method is what's being criticized, not necessarily how he used it. muon #46 - if you argue that some factor besides CO2 is causing warming (like a cloud 'internal forcing', in Spencer's case), that's how you get away with low sensitivity and the 0.8°C warming thus far. I'm not sure how Lindzen explains it - frankly I don't think he does.
  13. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    @ Chris G at 08:32 AM on 13 December, 2010. Sorry my English is not good (automatic translation) It results in the following outline of the greenhouse effect in 5 points: 1. The atmosphere is divided into two parts, in essence, bottom the troposphere with a lot of convection, where the weather is and where we live, and top the stratosphere without convection, with a possible move the border between the two spheres. 2. The temperature gradient in the troposphere is (almost) constant - even when changing the thickness of the troposphere. This consistency is result of convection. 3. The almost constant optical thickness of a changing stratosphere. This constancy is due to radiation and is due to the scaling (scaling) of the radiation transport equation for change in optical thickness with change in concentration of CO2. 4. If the temperature gradient exceeds a certain threshold, the air can not stay calm and stratification becomes unstable - and the convection is the characteristics of the troposphere 5. In the steady state (ie, even though time passes, the state no changes) does mean the heat of the earth just as great as the heat absorption - would otherwise be the temperatures change constantly. But this would contradict the stationarity. These 5 points provide a basic sensitivity of the average surface temperature as a result of changes in concentrations of CO2. Addition: The thicker troposphere has a greater temperature difference between top and bottom, and this greater temperature difference is so distributed to warming bottom and cooling top, that the total radiation of the Earth is equal to the total absorption.
  14. It's only a few degrees
    If you take a tray of ice cubes and let them warm until they are partially melted, then they will be at a balance point where only a small change in temperature will make them either all melt or all freeze. The Earth is also partly ice and partly water, at a similar balance point.
  15. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    47 archiesteel The first thing I ever posted on RC was deleted. Same was true at Rohm's website. In fact I got into an email exchange with Rohm were he used exactly your reasoning. But how do you expect people entering the debate to know "the same old debunked "skeptical" argument" from a legitimate concern or question? As you say RC can do what they want. And like you I have no problem with them alienating people.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] There exists the search function in the upper left of each page as well as the Arguments page. I used both myself for more than a year before commenting here for the first time.
  16. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dana1981 & dhogaza "it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points." Cherrypicking suggests intent (in the fiddling). Can you accidentally cherrypick? I suppose as long as you both think Lindzen is an honourable guy (just his method is weak) then I guess everything's OK.
    Response: "Can you accidentally cherrypick?"

    Absolutely. It's called cognitive bias.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 14:43 PM on 13 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Damorbel, although I brought up the subject, I don't want to be picky on words to the extreme. I think you make some valid points but I don't see that they are worth an argument. In the principles, I find nothing on which we disagree. If you don't like "flow", how about "net energy transfer"? As long as we know what our words mean, we can communicate. The problem with G&T associated blog discussions is that too many people use heat when they mean thermal energy, or energy, and do not realize that there is a difference between net and other energy transfers. Then they create a 2nd law violation where there isn't any. It matters little regarding the subject at hand. Tom summarized things rather well. My point was about what I see as an intrinsic inconsistency in Awol's reasoning. One can not say "I admit that there is energy transferred between the atmosphere and the surface" and at the same time deny that this makes the blackbody temp of the surface higher than it otherwise would be. Now, that would seem to be a true violation of the 2nd law! Whether or not it can be "directly" measured (whatever Awol meant there) would be a function of the measuring equipment, not of thermodynamics. As long as the net energy transfer is still in the right direction, there is no violation.
  18. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I'm gonna be honest sometimes I think RC crosses the line with their moderation and inline comments...
  19. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Crowley_Hyde_2008.pdf 3.7W/m2 (well lets say 3.5-4W/m2) - no sensitivity involved in this number at all. These are sum of direct forcings from anthropogenic emissions. Read that section of the IPCC carefully. Number matches pretty much the measurement from Evan 2006. There are two parts to acceptance of milankovitch theory. 1/ there is the observation that ice-age matches the milankovich forcings at 65N to an extraordinary degree. If milankovitch forcings are not involved, then there is a major problem explaining the observations. 2/There is the explanation (models) explaining how an orbital forcing with a very small global forcing value can produce large-scale global climate change. I would say 1/ is incontrovertible and that the broad features of 2/ are well established. There are however numerous detail aspects of 2/ that remain active research areas. I would also say that none of the problems in the details are relevant to the question of climate over next 100 years. The feedbacks are very slow and in the case of the all-important GHG feedbacks, completely overwhelmed by human emissions.
  20. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    AWoL @ 155: I had prepared a rather detailed response, and mis-clicked on "click for tips &c." when I meant to preview the post. So consider this the poor cousin alternative. So I'll just suggest checking out the threads on this site: - Empirical evidence for warming. - Empirical evidence of human causality. And I believe any further discussion on CO2 as a trace gas should occur in a thread such as this one. The great thing about this blog is its reliance on - and its frequent refernece to - the peer-reviewed literature in the various threads regarding the evidence surrounding AGW. I brought up quantum & relativistic physics as examples of areas which often require starkly non-intuitive thinking to bring understanding, the sort of thinking where relying on instinct can lead one astray. I am sure there are many excellent sources of information on them, both online and in print.
  21. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    scaddenp@48. The Milankovitch theory does have problems. Do I think it is wrong? From my research, and this was yes....dated....I came away with thinking it was not wrong nor correct. I have not read the Crowley paper and would be most interested in reading it. The level of proof a few years ago was quit thin. In ref to the 3.7W/m2....I am not comfortable with that number. I know it is cited in IPCC, but it is also reflective of what the sensativity is. And that is still a wide open question.
  22. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    scaddenp: Do you have an open link to Crowley? Thank you Yooper.
  23. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    #31: "The rate of release from hydrate deposits is limited by ..." Nothing limited about these numbers: Gas escape features off New Zealand: Evidence of massive release of methane from hydrates Multibeam swath bathymetry data ... show gas release features over a region of at least 20,000 km^2. Gas escape features, interpreted to be caused by gas hydrate dissociation, include an estimated a) 10 features, 8–11 km in diameter ... If the methane from a single event at one 8–11 km scale pockmark reached the atmosphere, it would be equivalent to ∼3% of the current annual global methane released from natural sources ... Full paper, with graphics, available here.
  24. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    Yes, Camburn, (though your source may be dated), but I was asking for problems where there are not multiple workable answers to the problem and merely difficulties constraining which works best. This is common issue in paleo sciences. Personally I think Crowley has nailed transition problem. Again, are you seriously looking at the milankovitch cycle and glaciation and saying you think milankovitch theory is wrong? Also, what relevance do you think any of milankovitch forcings have to climate in human terms? How much effect do you get from 0.25W/m2 change in one part of globe over one hundred years from orbital variation compared to 3.7W/m2 over whole globe in same time period?
  25. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @HUR: "I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC" Deleting troll posts is hardly censorship. There's no law forcing private websites from cleaning out their comments sections. Some websites just have lower tolerance for trolling, that's all. And, in case you wonder, I *do* consider that repeating the same old debunked "skeptical" argument is trolling at this point.
  26. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #44: "he thinks sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C for 2xCO2" But there's already been an ~0.6C increase since the 70s, with nowhere near a doubling in CO2 (1970=325ppm, 2010=388ppm). How are they getting away with what is the equivalent of 'voodoo economics'? #45: Eric, you're correct!
  27. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    Re: Camburn (44) Helpful tip:
    1. If your intent is to engage intellectually gifted people (yes, that lets me out) and 2. Spark meaningful dialogue on areas you feel have large areas of uncertainty
    then you may want to re-think your approach a bit. Visitors who pose questions framed with thought, and with cited sources, get a lot more interaction and positive attention. Or you could keep on posting unsupported assertions. Being a glass-half-full person, I opt for positive dialogue myself. I feel I get much better and informative conversations that way (and therefore learn more). Your Call. [ - Edit: OK, I see you added some bits. If you would delineate your position relative to the consensus on each, and also let on where you base your differing opinion (what source do you have for that), you'll find a more helpful and fulfilling interaction. End Edit - ] The Yooper
  28. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    Ok: 1.The 100,000 year problem 2. The 400,000 year problem 3. The stage 5 problem. 4. The transition problem. And these are only a few of the problems.
  29. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    muoncounter, it's only a nitpick but only the current interglacial was named the Holocene (I have no idea why). They named the prior one the Eemian. I'm sure they have strange names for the rest of them too.
  30. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    Now what exact problems are you talking about? The issues that I am aware of have to do with multiple possible solutions to unconstrained problem (eg sources of CO2, 100,000 year problem) rather than an inability to provide explanatory power. And these are hardly being ignored (look at any issue of Quaternary Science) - just not enough data yet to tie things down. While I know that correlation doesnt equal correlation, the match of the milankovitch cycles to ice-age cycle is so striking that surely you arent suggesting that these arent the dominant forcing? The fine details of the mechanism are another story.
  31. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    muoncounter #42 - yes, that's a common argument against the Lindzen theory. If climate sensitivity is really 0.3-0.5°C as Lindzen claims (the former on Watts' blog, the latter in LC09 linked in the article), then glacial-interglacial transitions are pretty much impossible to explain. It amazes me that any climate scientist can argue sensitivity is so low with a straight face. Spencer is more reasonable, I believe he thinks sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C for 2xCO2.
  32. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I've read both Spencer's blog and the email exchange between Spencer and Dessler, and honestly I can't figure out what Spencer is trying to argue. He says Dessler is wrong, but never clearly explains why. He claims it's an oversimplification to say that he's claiming cloud changes cause ENSO, but he never clearly explains his theory. Basically it seems to boil down to "Clouds are complicated beasts". Well gee, thanks for clarifying! But the bottom line is that if cloud changes aren't causing temp changes via ENSO changes, then they're acting as a temperature feedback, and Dessler's approach is correct, because ENSO is dominating the short-term temp changes.
  33. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #38: "it's the anti-science side saying "it's not a mystery, net cloud feedbacks are negative and at a magnitude that will counteract CO2-forced warming" Wait a sec, is that really what they're saying? Has anyone called 'em on it? As in, why didn't these miraculous clouds stop the 5 Holocene warmings of 6 degrees or more?
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    AWoL, the answer is "false!" to your question "The downward radiation can be measured but my understanding, at present, is that has no effect, as its frequency is too low to raise the temperature of matter at a warmer temperature.....2nd Law of Thermodynamics...true or false?" Your rationale contains several misconceptions. The frequency of the downward radiation is not by itself the determinant of the resulting temperature of the matter that absorbs it. The temperature of that matter at a given moment in time is a consequence of the energy that matter contains at that time. The matter does not know or care how it got that energy. If a single photon of frequency F is absorbed by that matter, the matter's energy increases by a corresponding amount E. Imagine that instead the matter is hit by two photons each having a lower frequency such that they each have only half that energy (i.e., E/2). If those two low-energy photons both are absorbed by the matter, the matter will absorb the same energy E (i.e., 2 x E/2 = E) that it would get from absorbing the single original photon that carried energy E (i.e., 1 x E = E). The temperature of the absorbing matter is irrelevant to whether the matter absorbs any of those three photons. But even the total amount of energy absorbed is not the sole determinant of the matter's temperature. At the same time that energy is being absorbed, energy is being emitted by the matter. If every time energy E is absorbed, coincidentally that exact same amount of energy E is emitted simultaneously, then the net change in the energy contained by the matter is 0 (i.e., +E + -E = 0). If the amount of energy contained by the matter does not change, then the temperature of the matter does not change. If instead the matter is absorbing 0 energy and is emitting E energy, the matter's contained energy is reduced by E (i.e., +0 + -E = -E), which means the matter's temperature reduces. If instead the matter is absorbing E and simultaneously emitting only 70% of E, then the matter's net change in energy is an increase of 30% of E (i.e., +E - .7E = +.3E). That last sentence is why the greenhouse gas effect does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Matter on the surface absorbs some of the photons emitted by the Sun, thereby acquiring energy. The temperature of that receiving matter has no influence on whether a particular solar photon is absorbed, and therefore has no influence on whether that photon's energy is added to the energy the matter already has. Matter on the surface also absorbs some of the photons that are emitted by air molecules. The temperature of the receiving matter has no influence on whether each of those particular air-sourced photons is absorbed. The surface matter blindly absorbs photons from both sources. Does the surface matter's temperature increase when those absorptions happen? There is no way to know unless we also know how much energy the matter is losing at the same time, as I described above. One name for that is the surface "energy budget"--energy gained minus energy lost equals net energy change. If the surface matter is emitting more energy than it is gaining, its current energy content falls, so its temperature falls, despite the fact it is absorbing energy. If the surface matter is emitting less energy than it is gaining, its current energy content rises, so its temperature rises. Crucially, the gaining of energy is that total from all sources--Sun and air, radiation and conduction. The fact that the source of some of that energy is really hot (Sun) and the source of some of the energy is kind of cool (air) has played no role. Photons do not carry source credentials. It happens that the temperature of the surface matter does affect how much energy the matter emits. Starting from equilibrium (balanced budget: energy in = energy out), when extra energy comes in, the total energy content becomes higher than a moment before, which means the temperature is higher, which leads to the emission of more energy. If that extra incoming energy was just a single pulse, then the extra outgoing continues until all that pulse's energy has gone out. In the absence of an ongoing stream of "extra" incoming energy, the matter's energy then is again at equilibrium. In this pulse case, the matter's temperature only temporarily increased. The temperature affected the energy budget, but only by affecting the amount of outgoing energy, not by affecting the amount of incoming energy. If instead of a single pulse of "extra" incoming energy there is a steady stream of extra incoming energy--a step up in the incoming energy--then the temperature increase also is a step up, and the temperature stays at that higher temperature, once again at equilibrium with the new (larger amount) of incoming energy matching the new (larger amount) of outgoing energy. The energy absorbed during the step-up itself remains inside the matter; the energy gotten during the step up remains "trapped" by the matter. Still, the temperature of the matter has no influence on the amount of energy absorbed; temperature affects the energy budget's bottom line only because it affects the energy budget's outgoing part of the equation. Greenhouse gas warming of the surface works as that last paragraph describes. Where exactly in that mechanism do you see an opportunity for the 2nd law to interfere?
  35. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points." In particular you can choose starting and ending points and get just about any result you want, and they gave no reason for the choice of their particular start/end points. Also, HR, you've only given one definition of "fiddled", there are common definitions that don't assign a malignant motive to the act, such as this one: "to touch or manipulate something, as to operate or adjust it; tinker (often fol. by with ): You may have to fiddle with the antenna to get a clear picture on the TV." Clearly saying a mathematical process can be "fiddled" uses the word in the sense of "to tinker with".
  36. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Reading RC and Spencers own blog then this statement seems to be a misrepresentation. Spencer does not support a hypothesis that clouds cause ENSO, in fact he clearly refutes it. " No, he's said "it's an oversimplification of my argument". If you follow his argument, it's essentially what it boils down to, though Dressler's being a bit snarky. He quite clearly states that he believes that the accepted science gets causuality backwards ...
  37. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC, and feel more free to ask questions here." Tough. He's there. Ask away. Now, if you ask something like "why don't you acknowledge that your paper is fraudulent and all of climate science is a fraud?", it's not going to show up. If you ask a rationale question about the paper, nicely, I'm sure it will.
  38. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn: "You are catching on. It is STILL a big mysterday." It's been a big mystery forever, and an openly acknowledged mystery. I've been aware of it for years, as has been anyone following climate science. It's not the science side saying it's not a mystery, it's the anti-science side saying "it's not a mystery, net cloud feedbacks are negative and at a magnitude that will counteract CO2-forced warming and feedbacks such as water vapor". Spencer doesn't talk about a "mystery", Spencer talks about *certainty* that his magic negative cloud feedback will save us. However, the preponderance of evidence shows that the net feedback will be slightly positive. Slightly negative's not off the table, but there is no sound evidence for the kind of magic feedback that folks like LIndzen and Spencer claim will kick in "real soon now" (i.e. as temps rise slightly) and forestall warming. Statements like this: "Thank you for posting this. You beat me too it. There are methodology problems with Dr. Dressle's paper." Are easy to make. I'll make an easy statement, too: put up or shut up. Seriously. Go show Dressler where he's wrong.
  39. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR #33 - the article says "...(Lindzen and Choi 2009) has been heavily criticized for using a method that can be fiddled...." It doesn't say they necessarily fiddled with the data, it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points.
  40. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #13 Thanks Robert (and Daniel). It was approachable and facsinating.
  41. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    29 & 31 dhogaza That's funny. I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC, and feel more free to ask questions here.
  42. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Spencer has countered this by arguing that ENSO changes are caused by clouds, and thus the response of clouds to surface temperature changes cannot be inferred. Dessler argues that Spencer's hypothesis that ENSO is caused by clouds is new and untested" Reading RC and Spencers own blog then this statement seems to be a misrepresentation. Spencer does not support a hypothesis that clouds cause ENSO, in fact he clearly refutes it. This has nothing to do with a Spencer hypothesis and seems to be a mis-reading by Dessler. I think it's an important point given the way Dessler uses this point to try to isolate Spencers work from the mainstream.
  43. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    And what about the problems with the Milankovitch theory? Are they to be ignored? It does not match climate nearly as well as some would think.
  44. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Just one small point. It keeeps jumping out at me every time I read the above article. "fiddled" - Definition 'The act or an instance of cheating or swindling; a fraud.' SkSci Comments Policy "No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives." It seems like a poor choice of words that's breaking the sites own rules, it could do with being changed. "Lacks robustness" sound more in the spirit of scientific criticism.
  45. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dhogaza@31: You are catching on. It is STILL a big mysterday.
  46. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel "Um, well, yes; very interesting. Tell me do you also reject the conclusions that have been drawn in consequence of the failure of the 'caloric theory' to match scientific observations, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy etc.?" non sequitur "In #160 I was drawing a distinction between internal energy which causes a temperature change (heat) and internal energy that doesn't cause a temperature change, sometime (mistakenly) called 'latent' heat. How do you draw a distiction between the two?" you where not talking about this: "Let there be no doubt about it, heat is energy density where the energy is in the form of molecular motion, it is to be found in all materials above 0K. ". Please don't try to move away from what you said, it's pointless. As I alread said, check any textbook. Or you think you know better than textbooks?
  47. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Oh, I misunderstood 28, he's quoting Dr. Dressler. But serious, why not just ask him?
  48. It's albedo
    Hey Ned, What is "s" in your equation for energy emitted? Thanks, David
  49. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Or, ask him from details at http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/ADessler
  50. The Climate Show #3: Cancun and cooling
    Daniel@5: Thank you....That was the intent.

Prev  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us